Skip to main content

About your Search

20121006
20121014
STATION
CSPAN 11
CSPAN2 4
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
KNTV (NBC) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 24
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)
done with jimmy carter, jump away from him. i couldn't do that to ronald reagan now, next year, or any other time. i have too much trust in him, i have too much friendship for him, and i would feel very uncomfortable doing that. >> some now claim he disagreed privately with jimmy cart's -- carter's decision to improse the grain emming. -- embargo. where, in your judgment, does loyalty end and principle begin? >> you can't have the united states of america out there looking over his shoulder wondering whether his vice president is going to be supporting him. mrs. ferraro has quite a few differences with vice president mondale. and i understand it when she changed her position on gas tax. she voted to end the grain embargo. if they win, and i hope they don't, but if they l win, she will have to accommodate his views, but she will give the same kind of loyalty i'm giving president reagan. one, we are not that far apart on anything. he also knows i won't be talking about him to the press, or i won't be knifing in the back by leaking to make me look good and complicate the problems for the
the leader of cyprus and the leader of the free world, ronald reagan in terms of meeting. the soviet union will meet with a lot of different people. we have been in close touch with those who have met with the leaders of the soviet union. that is quite different than meeting with the president of the united states. the soviets say, we will have a meeting when there has been progress. yet they left those talks. i would like to correct my opponent on the walk in the woods. it was the soviet union that was unwilling to discuss the what in the woods. representative ferraro mentioned the inflexibility on -- of our position on strategic arms. we tried to reduce the ss-18's and those weapons. there is flexibility. that is an important point in terms of negotiations. >> congresswoman, he that taketh away, must give back. you will have the to menace our a rebuttal. but you rob me of my follow-up. -- > >> you rob me of my follow-up. >> representative ferraro, how can you convince the american public that the world will be a safer place under ferraro- mondale. ? >> what you can do is look at what we
. they deliver the wrong thing. ronald reagan is delivering leadership. >> one minute rebuttal. >> i think what i will have to do is start correcting the vice president's statistics. there are 6 million more people with jobs. that is supposed to happen at enter a growing economy. with all the problems of the prior administration, they created 10 million jobs. the housing rights for middle- class americans was 14.5%. that was under the prior administration with all the prior problems was 10.6%. if you look at the people living in poverty, 6 million people. 500,000 people are not of disability rolls. you can walk there around and say things are great. that is what we have been hearing on commercials for the past couple of months. i will become a one woman truth squad, and we will start tonight. >> i would like to ask her about civil rights. you have in the past been a supporter of to russian tax credits and also the constitutional amendment to ban a blessing. both of these are opposed not only by your running mate but just about every education in the country. now that you are mr. mondale's running
debate. nixon was better in the second, gerald ford came back, ronald reagan came back after the disaster. and one assumes that president obama is doing the homework to make sure it happens. >> so johnathan, giving what larry describes here, does this mean the president has to come back and do just a solid debate performance or does he have to blow the socks off this one? >> just a solid performance. you know, he does have a lead, he lost, at most, two points. one to two points out of this last week, so he is going to be going in at this next debate, unless something else happens, which is not likely. you know, with a four-point lead, possibly. so if he can just deliver a solid performance, he will be fine. the danger for him is over compensating. so they talked about al gore, when he was sighing, and demeanor was not good, gore over-compensated again in the third debate, so that is something that people who have had a poor debate performance have to worry about. >> larry, i want to ask you about this very quickly, the next debate style will be town hall. we talked about how the president
in the building since used it as justification. ronald reagan advocating raising taxes period. that is not what he said. what do you say? do you draw the line that credits and closing loopholes is a tax increase? so don't think about it? >> guest: no. eliminate those that don't serve purpose. >> it's not a tax -- >> it is. it needs to be offset by reducing the rate. re-knew neutral, rates down. >> neil: romney talk it about cutting everyone's taxes by 20% and he is going to create the allowances and as he says make it in the end revenue natural -- >> that is not a tax increase. >> neil: ill's a tax cut. allowing for upper income people might find themselves at best with a wash. some may pay more. >> guest: we are looking for overall not raise tax burden on people. >> neil: i want to be clear. you are on board with the rich carrying a bigger chunk of the burden if their deductions are phased out or limited? >> guest: as long as rates don't go up and the overall tax burden doesn't go up, the tax reform is perfectly acceptable. that is a good idea. >> neil: okay. grover, thank you very much. he is a
's going to take advantage of it just like the hostage crisis in ronald reagan. i think that's what we are seeing now. they see an opportunity and they're trying to take advantage of it. where we should be having a legitimate, serious discussion about the direction of foreign policy in this country with serious ideas on the table yet there are no serious ideas on the table put up by mitt romney or paul ryan. >> stephanie cutter, deputy campaign manager from the obama campaign. busy night for you. thanks for spending some of it with us. we appreciate your time. >> thank you, rachel. >> we're counting down to the start of the vice presidential debate tonight. we have one distinct advantage here at msnbc. there's somebody among us right here at msnbc who has personally spent hours debating policy one-on-one with congressman paul ryan for real. that person is ezra klein, msnbc analyst. you should stay tuned to hear what ezra has learned from that very unique experience with one of the combatants in tonight's debate. stay with us. this is msnbc's live coverage of the vice presidential debat
years old. in 1965, i went to work making men's dress pants. when ronald reagan got into office, he started regulating everything. before he got out of office, missouri was losing its shoe factories. in 1991, our factory closed and sold as several others. -- and so did several others. these people are not for the american people. they are out for the rich people in this country and i think it is sad when a democrat gets into office, they turn into bullies. they don't want the democrats to get a thing done. i think it is so pathetic. they are getting paid to work for this country and instead they are just a bunch of bullies. host: what about her sentiment? guest: i think vice president joe biden is interested in these issues. one thing he has worked and in the by president say is a task force or a commission -- in the vice presidency is a task force to work on this. these issues about jobs being exported and jobs leaving and about diminished security for the middle-class -- the questions that joe biden has thought a lot about. at a general level, he would be quite comfortable talking
has done with jimmy carter -- jump away from it. i could not do that to ronald reagan now, next year, or any other time. i have too much trust in him, too much friendship for him, and i would feel very uncomfortable doing it. >> some republicans have criticized mr. mondale for saying he disagreed privately with jimmy carter's decision to impose a grain embargo. have you ever disagreed with any decision of the reagan administration and its inner circles? following that up, where in your judgment as loyalty and and principal begin? >> i owe my president my judgment, and i owe him loyalty. you cannot have the president of the united states out there looking over his shoulder wondering whether his vice- president is going to be supporting him. mrs. ferraro has quite a few differences with vice president mondale, and i understood it when she changed her position on tax credits and buses and to extend the grain embargo. he now says he was against it. if they win, and i hope they don't, but if they win, she will have to accommodate some views, but she will give him the same kind of loyalty
and cutting back on nuclear weapons and see what ronald reagan has been able to do with the inf treaty and i think he deserves great credit with that one. i see a situation where the senator from indiana has now jumped off the reservation, when we talk about building on what ronald reagan has done and opposes what ronald reagan wants to do, the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense and says let's go slow on further disarmament in trying to get the next treaty. i think that's a mistake. i think that you have to deal with the russians from strength and we have to understand that you have to have a strong modernized nuclear deterrent, but i think we can make substantial progress and we ought to take advantage. i think he's arrived at a very dangerous judgment in the question of war and peace and it concerns me very much. because i saw him also try to sabotage the inf treaty when it was on the floor of the united states senate with what he was doing there. he's listening once again to the winds of the radical right. >> senator. >> my light was still on, judy. >> john margolis, a que
what ronald reagan has been able to do with the inf treaty. i think it serves as a great credit. i see a situation where the senator from indiana has now jumped off the reservation when i talk about building on what ronald reagan has done and opposes what ronald reagan wants to do and the secretary of defense who says let's go slow on doing further disarmament and trying to get to the next treaty. i think that is a mistake. i think that you have to deal with the russians with strength and we have to understand that you have to have a strong modernized nuclear deterrent but i think we can make substantial progress and we ought to take advantage of it. i think he has arrived at a very dangerous judgment with a question of war and peace and it concerns me very much because i saw him also try to sabotage the inf treaty when it was on the floor of the united states senate and what he was doing there. he is listening once again to the whims of the radical right. >> moderator: john margolis question for senator kuo. >> i want to go back to qualifications which for most people is more than jus
's writing in addition to that when you're president and this is why ronald reagan losses first debate on why george w. bush lost his first re-election debate. if you are brought, it's arguably longer than that but anybody -- nobody really tells you what to think and he just -- that is way we saw the president physically taken aback as romney went at him. the romney folks, the new months ago that the debate prep would be the manhattan project of their campaign, that was where they were going to flip the switch if that had any possibility and we saw a romney whose family for a long time have been encouraging the campaign, to let him be more of himself, to be less scripted. he resisted that so we saw him all come out. the problem for him now, he has to do it two more times and there are number of countries who will tell you one problem is you only get one speak attack. [laughter] >> i will on to apologize to any of the ambassadors who are insulted by mike. [laughter] david letterman because one of the things hearing the obama camp's series of excuses and explanations for his performance, david
the specifics? do you know exactly what you're doing? >> look at what mitt romney -- look at what ronald reagan and tip o'neill did. they worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base and worked together to fix that. what we're saying is here's our framework. lower tax rates 20%. we raise about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. we forego $1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. what we're saying is deny those loopholes and deductions to higher income taxpayers so more of their income is taxed which has a broader base of translation so we can lower tax rates across the board. here's why i'm saying this. what we're saying -- >> i hope i get time to respond. >> you'll get time. >> we want to work with the congress on how best to achieve this. that means successful -- >> no specifics again. >> what we're saying is lower tax rates 20%, start with the wealthy. work with congress to do it. >> you guarantee this math will add up. >> six studies have guaranteed -- six studies have verified this would add up. >> vice president biden. >> i'll come back in a second then, ri
across the table. it's been done before. i saw it done with our wonderful ronald reagan, a conservative from california, and the liberal democrat tip o'neill from massachusetts. that's what we need more of, and that's what i've done in washington. senator obama has never taken on his party leaders on a single major issue. i've taken them on. i'm not too popular sometimes with my own party, much less his. so medicare, it's going to be a little tougher. it's going to be a little tougher because we're talking about very complex and difficult issues. my friends, what we have to do with medicare is have a commission, have the smartest people in america come together, come up with recommendations, and then, like the base-closing commission idea we had, then we should have congress vote up or down. let's not let them fool with it anymore. there's too much special interests and too many lobbyists working there. so let's have -- and let's have the american people say, "fix it for us." now, just back on this tax, you know, again, it's back to our first question here about rhetoric and record. sen
a distinguished lineage. ronald reagan and the 1986 democratic congress invented it. the gang of six endorsed it. in the upcoming talks on the fiscal cliff, we ought to scrap it. the reason is simple -- the old style of tax reform is obsolete in a 2012 world. it does not fit the times because there are two new conditions that did not exist in 1986 but are staring us in the face today. first, a much larger and much more dangerous deficit and second, a dramatic increase been income and inequality. old-style tax reform could make both conditions worse. but don't dismiss the old framework lightly. credit for the 1986 reform law belongs to democrats like bill bradley in the senate. just as much as to president reagan. as a member of the house back then, i not only voted for it, but i whipped the votes to make sure it passed. i was on the committee set up by dan rostenkowski to get it done. the approach made a good deal of sense at the time. then, as now, the code was littered with egregious loopholes that needed to be reformed. recall the so-called passive law schools that were in place back then. -
of loopholes in the tax code that approach has distinguished lineage. ronald reagan and the 1986 congress invented this. in the upcoming talks on the fiscal cliff, we should scrap this. the old style of tax reform is obsolete in a 2012 world. it does not fit the times because there are two new conditions that did not exist in 1986 but are staring us in the face today. first, a much larger and much more dangerous deficit and second, a dramatic increase been income and inequality. old-style tax reform could make both conditions worse. but don't dismiss the old framework lightly. credit for the 1986 reform law belongs to democrats like bill bradley in the senate. just as much as to president reagan. as a member of the house back then, i not only voted for it, but i whipped the votes to make sure it passed. i was on the committee set up by dan rostenkowski to get it done. the approach made a good deal of sense at the time. then, as now, the code was littered with egregious loopholes that needed to be reformed. recall the so-called passive law schools that were in place back then. they allowed
] that's why gerald ford signed the earned income tax credit and ronald reagan said it was the best -- it took over 2 million children out of poverty. that why i started the child tax credit, and when president george w. bush cut the taxes for high income people, at least he doubled the child tax credit. and when president obama became president, and we were losing three quartering of a million dollars a month, he increased the earned income tax credit again and did something we want dotted is not cap it at three kids. if a working family had five kids, they could get more help. [cheering and applause] in other words, this was a bipartisan american commitment until now. now you know, we're a bunch of slackers, us democrats. [laughter] shelly berkeley waiter daddy who worked hard to help her. john's story. steven's story. i was in northern california before i came here with four candidates for congress, two incumbents and two challengers. just think about this. it's kind of like you. like america. [cheering and applause] so i'm standing there and one of them, john is a farmer. the gr
are the successful governors. >> no president has had the reorganization of authority since ronald reagan. it expired in the 1980's. i think that needs to come back. i would put back the authority lost after the nixon area -- era. there has got to be a combination. you cannot leave the size and the structure of the garment we have in place. this is a government functions on an old model despite a 20 per century technology model. it is painful and slow. look at the demographics of the federal work force. they are aging. attrition would take care of a lot of this, if it could be accompanied by risk management. president obama, the largest management he has -- he has run the latest -- >> speaking about governors becoming president -- [laughter] >> i am very partial. >> next question. let's get a microphone to you. >> i consulted in lobbying. you talked about energy. we have enormous potential to develop our energy resources. it seems that a lot of it is a communications channel. when you have a lease, that does not mean that you will find the oil. we talked about having enormous reserves. it takes a lon
and in addition to that when you are president, and this is why ronald reagan lost his first debate and why president george w. bush lost his first re-election debate. when you are president, if you are barack obama, anybody has got to drill. nobody really tells you what to think and you just get used to it and that is why we saw the president almost physically taken aback as romney went at him. the romney folks, they knew months ago that the debate prep would be the manhattan project of their campaign and that was where they were going to flip a switch if they had any possibility. and we saw a romney who come his family for a long time was encouraging the campaign to let him be more himself, to be less scripted. part of it he resisted. the problem for him now, he has to do it two more times in their number of countries that will tell you one problem is you only get one sneak attack. [laughter] >> i want to apologize to any of the ambassadors that were insulted by mike allen's remark. [laughter] charlie mentioned jay leno. david letterman, one of the things that amuse me was hearing the oba
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)